SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(RAJ) 350

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR, J
KRISHANSINGH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CRLMB / 932 / 2025



Advocates:
Mr. Mohan Lal, Mr. Shrawan Singh Rathore, Public Prosecutor

The court granted bail based on the lack of support from key prosecution witnesses, indicating a weak case against the petitioner.

Headnote:(A) BNS Act - Sections 80(2), 85, 238(b) - Bail application - The petitioner, arrested for offences related to dowry death, contended false implication due to matrimonial discord - Material witnesses turned hostile, weakening prosecution's case - Court granted bail without expressing opinion on merits. (Paras 1-8)

(B) Bail - The court emphasized that the decision to grant bail is based on the assessment of the case's merits and the likelihood of conviction, considering the hostility of key witnesses. (Paras 6-7)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrested in connection with a suicide case of the deceased, allegedly due to mental harassment related to dowry demands. The prosecution's key witnesses did not support the case.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the lack of support from material witnesses significantly weakened the prosecution's case, leading to the decision to grant bail.

Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner should be granted bail considering the hostility of the prosecution witnesses.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the hostility of key witnesses significantly undermined the prosecution's case, justifying the grant of bail.

Result: Bail application allowed.

Order :

1. This application for bail under Section 483 BNSS (old Section 439 Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.328/2024 registered at Police Station Nai Mandi Gharsana, District Anoopgarh, for the offences under Sections 80(2), 85, 238(b) of BNS.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

3. As per the prosecution, the deceased- Smt. Kiran committed suicide by consuming poisonous substance due to mental harassment caused to her by her husband i.e. the present petitioner in connection with dowry demand.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel submitted that the deceased committed suicide due to her matrimonial discords with the present petitioner, however, the same was given the colour of dowry demand and dowry death.

5. Drawing attention of the Court towards the statements of material prosecution witnesses the case viz. the complainant- Hardev Singh (PW-1), mother of the deceased- Sarvjeet Kaur (PW-2) and father of the deceased-Ravi Singh (PW-3), learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that they have not supported the prosecution story and have turned hostile; due to which the chances of the petitioner getting convicted in the present matter are very bleak.

6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application. However, he was not in a position to refute the fact that the material prosecution witnesses i.e. Hardev Singh, Sarvjeet Kaur and Ravi Singh have not supported the prosecution story and have turned hostile.

7. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

8. Consequently, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner Krishansingh S/o Gurtejsingh, arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.328/2024 registered at Police Station Nai Mandi Gharsana, District Anoopgarh, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each, to the satisfaction of learned trial Court, for his appearance before that Court on each & every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till completion of the trial.

9. It is however, made clear that findings recorded/observations made above are for limited purposes of adjudication of bail application. The trial Court shall not get prejudiced by the same.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top